77-0002 DRAFT SECTION M.pdf

3-1

M-307 EVALUATION CRITERIA AND BASIS OF AWARD (BEST VALUE) (VARIATION)

(a) The Government intends to award a single contract as a result of this solicitation. The contract resulting from this solicitation will be awarded to the offeror whose proposal, conforming to the solicitation requirements, is (1) determined to be the technically superior proposal, and (2) is determined fair and reasonable based on price analysis.

The technically superior proposal will be determined based on an evaluation of Factor B, Technical Approach).

Factors A (Corporate Experience), C (Small Business Participation) and D (Past Performance) will be evaluated on an Acceptable/Unacceptable basis and must be rated "Acceptable" for a proposal to be eligible for award. If more than one (1) offeror receives the highest technical rating, the source selection authority (SSA) will conduct a comparative assessment based on the underlying merits of Factor B to determine technical superiority. If, after a comparative assessment, no offeror is found to be technically superior, the SSA will award the contract to one of these offerors with the lowest price that is determined fair and reasonable.

(b) Any assumptions, ground rules, or contingencies that are included in an offeror’s proposal will not be incorporated into any potential task order award. Proposals that contain terms that conflict with those of the solicitation will be determined to be nonconforming. PROPOSALS THAT DO NOT CONFORM TO THE

REQUIREMENTS STATED HEREIN MAY BE DETERMINED UNACCEPTABLE AND MAY BE REJECTED

WITHOUT FURTHER EVALUATION.

(c) Proposals will be evaluated on the evaluation factors listed below. Factor B (Technical Approach) will be evaluated using a combined technical/risk rating. Factors A (Corporate Experience), C (Small Business Participation) and D (Past Performance) will be evaluated on an Acceptable/Unacceptable basis. As stated in Provision L-1, there will be no tradeoff between the non-cost factors and price.

(d) The Government will perform an initial assessment of the offerors’ proposals against the submittal requirements of Section L of the solicitation. If an offeror (1) fails or refuses to assent to any of the terms and conditions of this RFP, (2) proposes additional terms or conditions, (3) fails to submit any of the information required by this solicitation, or (4) fails to submit required documentation in the manner and format specified in Section L, then the proposal may be eliminated from the competition without further consideration or evaluation.

(e) Upon receipt of proposals, the Government will evaluate Factor A (Gate Criteria) for compliance with the stated criteria in Section M of the solicitation. Factor A will be evaluated on an Acceptable/Unacceptable basis. A proposal that receives a rating of “Unacceptable” in Factor A will render the entire proposal ineligible for award without further evaluation. For offerors rated “Acceptable” for Factor A, the Government will evaluate the remaining non- Cost Factors and the Price Factor in accordance with the evaluation criteria stated in Section M of the solicitation.

(f) The offeror’s proposal shall be in the format prescribed by, and shall contain a response to, each of the areas identified in Section L and M.

Adjectival Ratings and Definitions:

(g) The following ratings will be utilized for Corporate Experience (Factor A) and Small Business Participation (Factor C):

Adjectival Rating Description

ACCEPTABLE Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

UNACCEPTABLE Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

The following ratings will be utilized for Technical Approach (Factor B):

Color Rating

Adjectival Rating

Description

BLUE OUTSTANDING

Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths and/or at least one significant strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

PURPLE GOOD

Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength or significant strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

GREEN ACCEPTABLE

Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

YELLOW MARGINAL

Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is high. Proposal in unawardable.

RED UNACCEPTABLE

Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation and thus, contains one or more deficiencies, and risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptable. Proposal is unawardable.

The following ratings will be utilized for Past Performance (Factor D):

Adjectival Rating Description

ACCEPTABLE

Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort, or the offeror’s performance record is unknown.

UNACCEPTABLE

Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government does not have a reasonable expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

NOTE: A proposal that receives a rating of “Unacceptable” in any non-cost factor or subfactor will result in the entire proposal being determined "Unacceptable" and ineligible for award.

Definitions Strength – is an aspect of an offeror's proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

Significant strength – is an aspect of an offeror’s proposal with appreciable merit or will exceed specified performance or capability requirements to the considerable advantage of the Government during contract performance.

Weakness – is a flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Significant Weakness – is a flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Deficiency – is a material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level.

Risk – as it pertains to source selection, is the potential for unsuccessful contract performance. The consideration of risk assesses the degree to which an offeror’s proposed approach to achieving the technical factor or subfactor may result in risk of disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, and the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.

NON-COST FACTORS

FACTOR A: GATE CRITERIA (CORPORATE EXPERIENCE)

The Government will evaluate the recency and relevancy of the contract reference information provided by offerors.

Offerors that do not provide three recent and relevant contract references (as defined in Section L) will receive an “Unacceptable” rating for this factor. This factor will be evaluated on an Acceptable/Unacceptable basis.

FACTOR B: TECHNICAL APPROACH

Subfactor B1: Project Management Plan

The Government will evaluate the offeror’s approach and understanding of the contract requirements through an assessment of their project management plan for the sample delivery order’s that are representatives of the substantive portion of the anticipated production requirements identified in the RFP’s PWS.

Specifically, the Government will assess the price, schedule and performance risks associated with the offeror’s execution plan and processes and procedures used for the production and delivery of 1) a CSRR Pre, Commissioned, Unit (PCU) Kit and 2) and Network on the Move (NOTM) Ultra Light Tactical Vehicle (ULTV) Procurement, production and integration. The Government will also evaluate whether the offeror’s proposed labor (aligned to WBS) and consolidated bill of materials (BOM) are sufficient to successfully accomplish the production requirement within the proposed schedule. If the proposed labor and material are deemed insufficient, the Government may consider this as a lack of technical understanding on the part of the offeror, and evaluate the proposal accordingly.

The Government will also evaluate the offeror’s utilization of a contractor facility, meeting the requirements specified in Section L, to execute the sample taskings.

An offeror’s approach to Project Planning, Schedule Management, and Procurement will be considered the more valuable aspects of the offeror’s project management plan.

Subfactor B2: Operations Management Plan

The Government will evaluate the offeror’s approach and understanding of the contract requirements through an assessment of their operations management plan for producing and delivering C5ISR systems under this contract.

The assessment will take into account the following:

- The proposed organizational and staffing structure;

- Details on how personnel will be allocated across concurrent production requirements throughout the contractual period;

- Team Composition (i.e. prime and subcontractor roles and responsibilities);

- Demonstration of the team’s approach to respond to emergent surge requirement in production demand, to include the possibility of OCONUS C5ISR production, (i.e. allocation of resources, workforce management, cross utilization of personnel, etc.);

- Explanation of processes for production and quality planning, test plans/procedures, contractor-site facility management, supply chain management, and long lead time management;

The subfactors order of relative importance is established as follows:

Subfactor B1 is more important than Subfactor B2.

FACTOR C: SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION

Offerors will be evaluated on whether they identify and commit to small business participation in the contract. This evaluation applies to offers from both large and small businesses. The Small Business Offeror’s own effort will be considered in the evaluation of this factor. Large business participation whether as a prime contractor or a subcontractor will not be credited for Small Business Participation.

Small Businesses include Small Businesses, Small Disadvantaged Businesses, Women-Owned Small Businesses, Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Businesses, and HUBZone Small Businesses.

Information provided on the Small Business Participation Data Form, Attachment 3, will be used in evaluation of this factor.

As set forth on the Small Business* Participation Data Form, the evaluation will be based upon:

Element 1 - Identification of specific small business participation in contract performance.

Element 2 - Extent of commitment to use such firms (including enforceability of that commitment).

Element 3 - Complexity and variety of work that will be performed by specific small businesses.

Element 4 - Realism of the proposal approach for the participation of specific small businesses.

Small Business Participation will be evaluated on an acceptable/unacceptable basis. Offerors failing to demonstrate an acceptable fostering of small businesses will receive an Unacceptable rating and the offeror will be ineligible for contract award.

The subcontracting plan, which is only required from large businesses, is a separate requirement and is in addition to the information required to evaluate this factor.

FACTOR D: PAST PERFORMANCE

The past performance evaluation will result in an overall assessment of the offeror's probability of meeting the solicitation requirements. The past performance evaluation considers each offeror's demonstrated current and relevant (as defined in Section L, Factor A) record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the contract's overall requirements.

The Government will assess the offeror's past performance considering the following areas:

(1) Quality of Product or Service

(2) Schedule

(3) Cost Control

(4) Business Relations

(5) Management of Key Personnel

(6) Commitment to Small Business, HUBZone Small Business, Small Disadvantaged Business, Women-

Owned Small Business, Veteran-Owned Small Business and Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business Subcontracting.

The Government will review this past performance information and determine the quality and usefulness of an offeror’s past performance based on:

(1) relevancy of previous work performed as compared to the RFP. A determination of relevancy will be made based on the current and relevant requirements under Factor A.

(2) records of objective measurements and subjective ratings of specified performance attributes, if available, (i.e., CPARS, Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS))

(3) statements of opinion about the quality of specific aspects of an offeror’s performance, or about the quality of an offeror’s overall performance.

The Government may solicit information from an offeror’s customers and business associates; Federal, state and local government agencies; and from other persons and organizations. The Government reserves the right to limit the number of references it decides to contact and to contact references other than those provided by the offeror.

The evaluation will take in account the same type of information regarding significant subcontractors proposed in the offeror’s proposal.

The content of the past performance record(s) submitted for individual Task Orders under a single Indefinite Delivery contract (other than orders under GSA, GWAC, DoD-wide (SeaPort, NETCENTS, ITES, ENCORE, etc.)

will be considered as an aggregate rating and applied as one past performance record for evaluation purposes.

Offerors that have no record of past performance (i.e., new businesses) must submit a signed and dated statement to that effect. If an offer submits a certification statement and the Government has no information available regarding the offeror’s past performance, that offeror will receive a neutral rating (i.e., the offeror is evaluated neither favorably nor unfavorably) for past performance. If offerors (prime and significant subcontractors) provide contract reference information that is not relevant and current as defined in Section L, then that reference will not be considered.

The minimum acceptance criterion is a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort. For the purposes of evaluation, a neutral rating will be considered acceptable. In addition, offerors that receive an overall CPARS/Past Performance Questionnaire rating of “Marginal” or “Unacceptable” will be considered “Unacceptable.”

Past performance information will be evaluated on an Acceptable/Unacceptable basis.

PRICE FACTOR

FACTOR E: PRICE

Evaluation of an offeror’s proposal shall be based on the information presented in the proposal and information available to the Contracting Office from sources deemed appropriate.

Price proposals will be evaluated in accordance with the criteria in FAR 15.404-1. The sample tasks are considered to be representative of the majority of individual delivery order production requirements identified in the RFP’s PWS. The total evaluated price for the sample tasks will be used in the Government’s determination of the highest technically rated offeror with a fair and reasonable price. The government may limit its price analysis to the technically superior proposal.

(a) HUBZone Evaluation Preference. The Government will give offers from qualified HUBZone concerns a preference in the cost evaluation in accordance with FAR clause 52.219-4, unless waived by the offeror. Qualified HUBZone firms are identified in the Small Business Administration's website at: http://www.sba.gov/hubzone .

(b) Small Business* Subcontracting Plan. The information provided in the Small Business* Subcontracting Plan will be evaluated by the Government in accordance with FAR Part 19/DFARS Part 219. The approved Small Business Subcontracting Plan shall be incorporated into any resulting contract award. It should be noted that failure to submit a Small Business Subcontracting Plan acceptable to the Contracting Officer will make the offeror ineligible for award of a contract.

DoD Program Goals - Minimal Subcontracting Goal for Small Business is located at DoD OSBP website:

https://business.defense.gov/About/Goals-and-Performance/